Judgment :-

1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1009-SB of 2000, 1031-SB of 2000 and 1080-SB of 2010, by way of which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 25.09.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab in Sessions Case No. 15T/98/22.12.95, by way of which the learned trial court has convicted the appellants along with others, namely, Ranjit Singh and Smt. Jasbir Kaur for the offences punishable under Section(s) 376(2)(g) and 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and awarded sentence of 10 years to each of them and fine of Rs.2000/- and Rs. 3,000/- respectively, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one year and six months respectively.

2. The facts and circumstances leading to filing of these appeals are that, one Manjit Kaur (PW-1), who was a student of class X had gone along with 15-16 other girls from her school to attend sport meet at Fatehgarh Sahib. All those 15-16 girls had been walking to reach Fatehgarh Sahib. In the meanwhile, Balbir Singh, the Director of Physical Education, asked Manjit Kaur, prosecutrix (hereinafter referred to as ‘Prosecutrix’) that she should sit on the scooter of Mohan Lal Verma, one of the appellants herein. She was not initially willing to go along with Mohan Lal Verma on his scooter, but she was threatened by Balbir Singh-appellant, and thus under the pressure and force, she sat on the scooter of Mohan Lal Verma. When Mohan Lal Verma reached near petrol pump of Machlian, he stopped the scooter and pretended to repair it. Ranjit Singh, also a teacher in the same school and who had also been convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court, and whose SLP has been dismissed vide order dated 18.3.2011, arrived there on cycle and Mohan Lal Verma-appellant forced Manjit Kaur to sit on his cycle. As she had no other option, she sat on the cycle of Ranjit Singh who, after reaching Gurdwara Jyoti Sarup told her that he had to give some message to his sister, and that she should accompany him. Manjit Kaur was not willing and resisted to a certain extent but she was persuaded/forced to accompany Ranjit Singh. Both went to the house of Jasbir Kaur. By this time, Mohan Lal Verma, Amarjit Singh and Balbir Singh had already reached the place. Manjit Kaur was offered tea by Jasbir Kaur and thereafter, she pushed her into the room where Ranjit Singh committed rape upon her in the presence of other persons as a result of which she became unconscious.

3. Darbara Singh (PW-3), father of the prosecutrix lodged the FIR, though at a later stage, i.e. after one week, in the police station. The matter was investigated, charge sheet was filed against all these persons and after conclusion of the trial, the trial court convicted all the aforesaid appellants as well as Ranjit Singh and Jasbir Kaur, and awarded sentence referred to hereinabove. The High Court, while hearing their appeals, acquitted only Jasbir Kaur and maintained the conviction and sentence of other persons, hence these appeals.

4. Shri V.K. Jhanji, learned senior counsel and Shri Manoj Swarup, advocate appearing for the appellants had raised a large number of issues pointing out various discrepancies in the case of prosecution.

The prosecutrix (PW-l), her mother, Smt. Jaswant Kaur (PW-2) and her father, Darbara Singh (PW-3) were examined, but since PW-3 died during the trial, he could not be cross-examined by the defence, and as such his evidence could not be relied upon. Undoubtedly, PW-1 and PW-2 supported the case of the prosecution but in the last resiled from the same.

5. We have gone through their depositions and it is clear that in the earlier part of their evidence, both the witnesses had clearly implicated all these accused. The FIR could not be lodged immediately after the incident, as there was no one i